What were they thinking: A memory without a cache

Normally you get a patent for creating something new. This patent appears to want to patent the removal of something...

Now here is a good one. Back in the old days, we had a flat memory structure. Things like cache were a later invention created to take into account the speed and cost relationships between most memories. The larger the quantity of data that could be stored, the slower it becomes but at a cheaper cost per unit. Thus to have large amounts of storage and faster access, the hierarchical nature of memory was created. The smallest and fastest of those is cache which is normally implemented using RAMs and the fastest access caches are those built into the chips themselves. Solid state memories fall into this same hierarchy in that they are faster than disk but more expensive per unit of data than disk. Similarly, they are cheaper than RAM but slower – thus meaning that the use of a cache can help to provide a better overall cost/performance tradeoff.

Now an inventor in China doesn’t like this arrangement and believes they have invented something better – the elimination of the cache. Here is why they think it is necessary:

(1) Data consistency issue: existing technical solution uses hierarchical structure to store data, and when a user updates the data, the user has to synchronize modi?cations to the data in the Cache Layer and the data in the Data Layer. If the data in both layers are not properly synchronized, data inconsistencies may occur between the data in the Cache Layer and the data in the Data Layer;

(2) Cost issue: the data most frequently accessed in the Cache Layer also needs to be stored in the Data Layer, which is redundant, and leads to additional costs.

(3) Reliability issue: due to memory data volatility, once a server of the Intemet website loses power either intentionally or inadvertently, the data stored in the Cache Layer is lost and it has to be reloaded after the power is back on. When the Cache Layer is in the process of reloading data, external request is likely to be affected, and access to the data in the Data Layer will likely to increase the load on the Data Layer.

(4) Design complexity issue: to resolve or alleviate as far as possible the issues listed above, design of the system as a whole can become more complex; and

(5) Operation and maintenance-related issue: the factors listed above also will increase the costs of website operation and maintenance.

So, don’t believe that it is as simple as removing the cache? Here is claim 1. If this gets granted then there is no hope for the patent system!

A method for storing data, comprising the steps of: receiving a request for storing data sent by a user; and storing the data in a solid state disk (SSD) according to the received request.

This is application number 2013/0073782 that published on March 21st of this year. That does not mean it has been granted. I hope it never does, but these international patent treaties are meant to help foreign patents, such as this one, get an easy ride through the US system.

If you found this article to be of interest, visit EDA Designline where – in addition to my blogs on all sorts of "stuff" – you will find the latest and greatest design, technology, product, and news articles with regard to all aspects of Electronic Design Automation (EDA).

Also, you can obtain a highlights update delivered directly to your inbox by signing up for the EDA Designline weekly newsletter – just Click Here to request this newsletter using the Manage Newsletters tab (if you aren't already a member you'll be asked to register, but it's free and painless so don't let that stop you [grin]).

It's a common trick. The patent attorney doesn't know how dumb the examiner is, but it's a fair bet he's not that smart (otherwise he would be listed as the inventor, not the examiner). So first you write "I invented the wheel", then you start with "the wheel of claim 1 fitted with a tyre", onto " the wheel of claim 1 fitted with wheel nuts" etc. The examiner comes back with "claim 1 isn't new, but it would be if combined with claims 14 and 17". So you get the examiner to define your limitations for you. Occasionally you come across a really dumb examiner who allows claim 1 as is (it has happened in my industry). Such a patent would never stand up in court, but that isn't the examiners' problem.